do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-652/11: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — Sabbagh v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions, trade restriction








C_2015118EN.01002302.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/23





Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Sabbagh v Council
(Case T-652/11) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability))
(2015/C 118/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bassam Sabbagh (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: M.-A. Bastin and J.-M. Salva, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Firstly, annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 of 14 November 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 3) and of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56) and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name has been included in the lists of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply and, secondly, an action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Rejects as inadmissible the application for annulment of the Council Implementing Regulations later than the adoption of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011;










2.


Annuls, in so far as those acts concern Mr Bassam Sabbagh:






—


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 of 14 November 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011;










—


Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP;










—


Regulation No 36/2012;














3.


Orders the effects of the regulations annulled to be maintained with respect to Mr Sabbagh until the time-limit for an appeal has expired or, if an appeal is brought within that time-limit, until any dismissal of the appeal;










4.


Dismisses the claim for compensation;










5.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Mr Sabbagh;










6.


Orders Mr Sabbagh to bear half of his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.
Case T-102/15: Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Optimum Mark (Representation of the colours blue and silver)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, graphic illustration, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015138EN.01006102.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/61





Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Optimum Mark (Representation of the colours blue and silver)
(Case T-102/15)
(2015/C 138/80)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimum Mark (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Representation of the colours blue and silver — Community trade mark registration No 9 4 17  668

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 in Case R 2036/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision;










—


Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, should it intervene, to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 4, 7(1)(a) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations established by the Court of Justice under Community law.
Case C-143/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer — Article 4(2) — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject-matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and remuneration as long as they are in plain intelligible language — Terms including a ‘risk charge’ charged by the lender and authorising it, under certain conditions, unilaterally to alter the interest rate)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, credit, interest, interpretation of the law, unfair terms of contract








C_2015138EN.01000402.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/4





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA
(Case C-143/13) (1)

((Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer - Article 4(2) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject-matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and remuneration as long as they are in plain intelligible language - Terms including a ‘risk charge’ charged by the lender and authorising it, under certain conditions, unilaterally to alter the interest rate))
(2015/C 138/04)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei

Defendant: SC Volksbank România SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, ‘main subject-matter of the contract’ and ‘adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplies in exchange, on the other’ do not, in principle, cover the types of terms in the credit agreements concluded between a professional and consumers such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which, on one hand, allow, under certain conditions, the lender unilaterally to alter the interest rate and, on the other hand, provide for a ‘risk charge’ applied by the lender. However, it is for the referring court to verify that classification of those contractual terms having regard to the nature, general scheme and stipulations of the agreements concerned and the legal and factual context of which they form part.


(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
Case C-564/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion v European Commission (Appeals — Article 340, first paragraph, TFEU — Contractual liability of the European Union — Article 272 TFEU — Arbitration clause — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Contracts relating to the Ontogov, FIT and RACWeb projects — Eligible costs and amounts advanced by the Commission — Declaratory action — No vested and current interest in bringing proceedings)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, Greece, contract terms, eligibility criteria, interest in bringing an action








C_2015138EN.01001501.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/15





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion v European Commission
(Case C-564/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Article 340, first paragraph, TFEU - Contractual liability of the European Union - Article 272 TFEU - Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Contracts relating to the Ontogov, FIT and RACWeb projects - Eligible costs and amounts advanced by the Commission - Declaratory action - No vested and current interest in bringing proceedings))
(2015/C 138/18)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion (represented by: V. Khristianos and S. Paliou, dikigori)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Conte and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Drakakakis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.
Case T-392/12: Order of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Lavazza v OHIM — Commercialunione prima (LAVAZZA A MODO MIO) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, coffee, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015138EN.01004802.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/48





Order of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Lavazza v OHIM — Commercialunione prima (LAVAZZA A MODO MIO)
(Case T-392/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
(2015/C 138/63)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Lavazza SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, M. Ricolfi, G. Sironi and C. Mezzetti, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by F. Mattina, subsequently by F. Mattina and N. Bambara, and finally by N. Bambara and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Commercialunione Prima Srl (Bresso, Italy) (represented by: G. Celona and B. Dosi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 124/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Commercialunione Prima Srl and Luigi Lavazza SpA.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The applicant and intervener shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs borne by the defendant.






(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.
Case T-99/15: Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Sfera Joven v OHIM — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015155EN.01003101.xml










11.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/31





Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Sfera Joven v OHIM — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA)
(Case T-99/15)
(2015/C 155/36)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Las banderas del Mediterráneo, SL (Cox, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NOOSFERA’ — Application for registration No 11 233 681

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2014 in Case R 158/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 12 December 2014 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 158/2014-4 in so far as in rejecting the opponent’s appeal, it confirmed the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting Opposition B 2 160 557 and granting in full Community trade mark No 11 233 681 ‘NOOSFERA’ (word mark);










—


order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-41/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Christie’s France SNC v Syndicat national des antiquaires (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/84/EC — Article 1 — Intellectual property — Sale at auction of original works of art — Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art — Person liable for the resale royalty — Buyer or seller — Derogation by agreement)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, artist's resale right, interpretation of the law, sale, work of art








C_2015138EN.01001901.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/19





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Christie’s France SNC v Syndicat national des antiquaires
(Case C-41/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/84/EC - Article 1 - Intellectual property - Sale at auction of original works of art - Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art - Person liable for the resale royalty - Buyer or seller - Derogation by agreement))
(2015/C 138/24)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Christie’s France SNC

Respondent: Syndicat national des antiquaires

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(4) of Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art must be interpreted as not precluding the person by whom the resale royalty is payable, designated as such by national law, whether that is the seller or an art market professional involved in the transaction, from agreeing with any other person, including the buyer, that that other person will definitively bear, in whole or in part, the cost of the royalty, provided that a contractual arrangement of that kind does not affect the obligations and liability which the person by whom the royalty is payable has towards the author.


(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
Case C-6/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Wucher Helicopter GmbH, Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG v Fridolin Santer (References for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 — Air carriers and aircraft operators — Insurance — Requirements — Definitions of ‘passenger’ and ‘member of the crew’ — Helicopter — Carriage of an expert in the blasting of avalanches using explosives — Injury suffered during a work flight — Compensation)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil aviation, contract of carriage, crew, helicopter, indemnification, self-employed person, transport insurance, traveller








C_2015138EN.01001801.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/18





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Wucher Helicopter GmbH, Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG v Fridolin Santer
(Case C-6/14) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 - Air carriers and aircraft operators - Insurance - Requirements - Definitions of ‘passenger’ and ‘member of the crew’ - Helicopter - Carriage of an expert in the blasting of avalanches using explosives - Injury suffered during a work flight - Compensation))
(2015/C 138/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Wucher Helicopter GmbH, Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG

Defendant: Fridolin Santer

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 3(g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators must be interpreted as meaning that the occupant of a helicopter held by a Community air carrier, who is carried on the basis of a contract between that air carrier and the occupant’s employer in order to perform a specific task, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is a ‘passenger’ within the meaning of that provision;










2.


Article 17 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 on the basis of Article 300(2) EC, approved on behalf of the EC by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a person who comes within the definition of ‘passenger’ within the meaning of Article 3(g) of Regulation No 785/2004, also comes within the definition of ‘passenger’ within the meaning of Article 17 of that convention, once that person has been carried on the basis of a ‘contract of carriage’ within the meaning of Article 3 of that convention.






(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
Case T-135/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — France v Commission (State aid — Pensions — Aid for the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom — Reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State by France Télécom — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions — Advantage)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, European official, State aid, control of State aid, pension scheme, telecommunications industry








C_2015118EN.01002401.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/24





Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — France v Commission
(Case T-135/12) (1)

((State aid - Pensions - Aid for the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom - Reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State by France Télécom - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions - Advantage))
(2015/C 118/31)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and J. Rossi, then D. Colas Diégo and R. Coesme, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, L. Flynn and D. Grespan, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/540/EU of 20 December 2011 on State aid C 25/08 (ex NN 23/08) reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom (OJ 2012, L 279, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.
Case C-238/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Occasional workers in the entertainment arts — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Clause 5(1) — Measures to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts — Concept of ‘objective grounds’ justifying such contracts)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: framework agreement, infringement of EU law, performing arts, temporary employment, work contract








C_2015138EN.01002302.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/23





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-238/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Occasional workers in the entertainment arts - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Clause 5(1) - Measures to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts - Concept of ‘objective grounds’ justifying such contracts))
(2015/C 138/31)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by maintaining in force, with respect to occasional workers in the entertainment arts, derogations from the measures designed to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work of 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP;










2.


Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.